School clothing company fined over fire safety failings at premises which 'risked lives'

A school-wear firm has been fined £20,000 for a catalogue of fire safety issues which a court heard put lives at risk and may have sparked a blaze.

The School Outfit Ltd, which claims to be the North East’s biggest supplier of classroom clothing, did not have a suitable fire protection policy, prosecutors said.

Bosses allowed electrical sockets to become overloaded, stored combustible matter near a portable heater and did not carry out a suitable fire risk assessment.

They also failed to fit appropriate fire alarms, obstructed escape routes with boxes and did not install emergency lighting nor develop adequate safety drills.

And there was no appropriate system of fire extinguisher maintenance, nor repeat fire safety training for staff - and a rear safety door opened onto overgrown land.

At South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, the firm pleaded guilty to 10 counts of failing to comply with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The charges were laid after the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service inspected the premises on Thursday, August 10, a day after attending a blaze at the site the previous day.

It is believed an employee doing evening work was oblivious to the fire and was made aware by a neighbouring business premises in Hutton Close, Crowther Industrial Estate.

The case was brought by the fire service and prosecuted by Ian Palmer, on behalf of Sunderland City Council.

The court heard the company has since completed safety upgrades and was compliant with all fire regulations.

No one from the firm was in court but Angus Westgarth, defending, said: “There were guilty pleas at the first opportunity. It has righted all wrongs.”

Magistrates described the business's culpability as “high” and said there had been a “risk of death”.

But they also found mitigation in that it had immediately pleaded guilty, had a clean previous safety record and had made all necessary improvements.

David Gouch, chair of the bench, said: “There was a risk of death, there’s really nothing more than that.”

The court, which had the power to impose a fine of between £12,000 and £54,000, ordered costs of £4,221, with the overall financial penalty to be paid at £250 a week.